National Defence committee  If I might add to that, you may be aware that roughly a month ago the Government of Canada's Department of National Defence agreed to a contract with the Inuit Development Corporation by which they will now sustain and maintain not only the North Warning System until it's replaced, but also the forward operating locations.

National Defence committee  Well, this is a little out of my area of expertise, but I would answer it this way. I'm not sure if I would label this a Defence problem. National Defence and NORAD, for example, have always thought that they should have a lead role in North American cyber-defence or cybersecurity.

National Defence committee  Shall I go first?

National Defence committee  It's not really a question of increasing the defence budget per se. The question is, how much, over what period of time and, particularly, dedicated to what acquisitions independent of operations and maintenance, and independent, as Professor Saideman has pointed out, of the problems of recruitment.

National Defence committee  No. Because of [Technical difficulties—Editor] and the demographic reality that Canadian cities are located close to the border and to American cities, issues about the accuracy and the guidance systems of potential threatening long-range ICBM capabilities, and the fact that they understand very clearly that we are economically integrated, they see this, as far as I'm concerned, as one target set.

National Defence committee  Pardon me.

National Defence committee  That's okay. Basically, this idea that somehow everyone separates Canada from the United States is a Canadian myth, for political purposes. We are one target area, and it's confirmed by our close relationship with the United States.

National Defence committee  The most important investment, at the moment, is in [Technical difficulties—Editor]. It's not, as I said, simply the North Warning System or replacing it with another series of ground-based radar systems. The current discussions are potentially focused on over-the-horizon—

National Defence committee  Yes.

National Defence committee  The most important and pressing requirement right now is sensor systems, and not simply in terms of replacing the ground-based North Warning System. The current preference is for over-the-horizon backscatter radars. Integrating both ground-based replacements as well as air-based....

National Defence committee  Basically, no. There were developments in the 1960s. The Soviet Union tested a fractional orbital bombardment system, but gave it up. This is a potential threat, and it's important for Canada [Technical difficulty—Editor] on the North Warning System, that northern line of radars.

National Defence committee  Thank you. I will be brief and focus my remarks on the assessment of the threat to North America. The first thing to recognize is that the threat assessment really hasn't changed despite the ongoing war in Ukraine. The issues confronting North American defence have been known for some time now.

Foreign Affairs committee  If national governments don't have any rules, and they all do—sometimes enforced properly, sometimes not—the existence of the Arms Trade Treaty is not going to have any effect on that whatsoever, because the treaty reflects consensus behaviour. In my view, these obligations are interesting and they are driven by other political considerations.

Foreign Affairs committee  One quick comment—

Foreign Affairs committee  Treaties don't have any enforcement measures. There's the collapse right there.